So seeing this written out."80g of fat=720 calories150g of protein=600 calories50g of carbs= 200 calories"

Really shows how low carb dieting works. I mean, those are pretty high fat and protein numbers yet 1520 calories is still really low. You can continue to say that LC is special besides the way it helps keep calories low but the proof is in the numbers there. Satiety with lower calories. Nothing more. Those two things can work wonders for people alone. Keep it up everyone.

Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.

The "hundreds of thousands" of diet site members who have failed to lose the weight they tried to lose and keep it off. You know, the ones you told us we should be listening to and learning from.

98% of those who do conventional dieting fall into this category. You brought up site members at weight loss sites as an example of people whose advice we should take, as though they 100% are successful and agree with you.

Look at the challenge page sometime. You see crazy diets, pro-ana, all kinds of nonsense. Check out the diets page. There is no agreement.

You have a handful of "experts" you point at, and forums filled with noise.

I had no idea you didn't understand how low carb diets work. Let me explain it to you so you can stop having to make it up as you go.

Our bodies have a need for protein as the building blocks of muscle, for repair and new growth. A person's need for protein varies depending on their activity level.

Besides protein, we need energy to operate our bodies. Both fat and carbohydrate are energy calories. A person can choose how to distribute the energy calories they wish to consume in any proportion they wish.

When someone says they eat a low carb diet, they are eating their bodies' normal requirement of protein, and choosing to get most of their energy calories from fat.

There are indeed those who eat a high protein diet and seem not to suffer from it. But they are not considered "low carb" without qualification, because low carb is not a high protein diet.

Low carb is indeed a high fat diet. The majority of energy calories come from fat. The diet plan you constructed is a high protein/low carb diet, though some might argue that at 50g of carbohydrates, it is borderline very low carb/high protein.

What you're arguing against in this post isn't even a straw man. It's just wrong.

I did not post a universal low carb macro setup Kathy. I posted one example. Red said he tried to eat less than 50g which is why I chose that number. Too much higher than that and will the extra 300 calorie burn even take effect. Where is the threshold?

Here is another example. Please get another pathetically condescending post ready Kat.

120g of fat= 108075g of carbs= 30075g of protein= 300

1680 calories. Oh, look I went and posted a universal low carb macro setup. The arrogance.

Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.

So seeing this written out."80g of fat=720 calories150g of protein=600 calories50g of carbs= 200 calories"

Really shows how low carb dieting works. I mean, those are pretty high fat and protein numbers yet 1520 calories is still really low. You can continue to say that LC is special besides the way it helps keep calories low but the proof is in the numbers there. Satiety with lower calories. Nothing more. Those two things can work wonders for people alone. Keep it up everyone.

No, it doesn't show how low carb dieting "works". It just shows how a person who disagrees with the principle of low carb dieting imagines it to be.

I had no idea you didn't understand how low carb diets work. Let me explain it to you so you can stop having to make it up as you go.

Our bodies have a need for protein as the building blocks of muscle, for repair and new growth. A person's need for protein varies depending on their activity level.

Besides protein, we need energy to operate our bodies. Both fat and carbohydrate are energy calories. A person can choose how to distribute the energy calories they wish to consume in any proportion they wish.

When someone says they eat a low carb diet, they are eating their bodies' normal requirement of protein, and choosing to get most of their energy calories from fat.

There are indeed those who eat a high protein diet and seem not to suffer from it. But they are not considered "low carb" without qualification, because low carb is not a high protein diet.

Low carb is indeed a high fat diet. The majority of energy calories come from fat. The diet plan you constructed is a high protein/low carb diet, though some might argue that at 50g of carbohydrates, it is borderline very low carb/high protein.

What you're arguing against in this post isn't even a straw man. It's just wrong.

I did not post a universal low carb macro setup Kathy. I posted one example. Red said he tried to eat less than 50g which is why I chose that number. Too much higher than that and will the extra 300 calorie burn even take effect. Where is the threshold?

Here is another example. Please get another pathetically condescending post ready Kat.

120g of fat= 108075g of carbs= 30075g of protein= 300

1680 calories. Oh, look I went and posted a universal low carb macro setup. The arrogance.

Yeah, you did, Diab. See, you don't have to misrepresent it.

The point is though that you came up with a totally off-the-wall protein number to go with the carbs, and then blamed the diet as being "high protein".

The "hundreds of thousands" of diet site members who have failed to lose the weight they tried to lose and keep it off. You know, the ones you told us we should be listening to and learning from.

98% of those who do conventional dieting fall into this category. You brought up site members at weight loss sites as an example of people whose advice we should take, as though they 100% are successful and agree with you.

Look at the challenge page sometime. You see crazy diets, pro-ana, all kinds of nonsense. Check out the diets page. There is no agreement.

You have a handful of "experts" you point at, and forums filled with noise.

By your logic, NOONE is to be believed. Good argument. I've seen dozens of obese doctors. Just because people fail does not mean they do not know what is needed to get healthy. Please.

There are many pro bodybuilders who know squat about nutrition, they are only in shape because they follow what their coach tells them and they have the one most important thing. MOTIVATION.

Someone's physique does not make them an all knowing entity. You can be assured that their methods, if followed correctly would work for you however. Their body shows it works but it is just one possible path and may have more hurdles than necessary.

Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.

By your logic, NOONE is to be believed. Good argument. I've seen dozens of obese doctors. Just because people fail does not mean they do not know what is needed to get healthy. Please.

No, it's just people who don't understand what they're arguing against, but have a gut feeling that it's really bad and nobody should do it whose advice is untrustworthy.

If you don't understand the basis, it doesn't matter what experts you try to claim support you.

You have thrown up so many straw men in this thread in an effort to misrepresent LC. And now you're trying to claim that you never had anything against LC, and each to his own. Was it all nothing but a misunderstanding?

Diablo, be careful, its a long drop off that pedestal you have yourself on !

I am a perfect example of CICO does not work, i've posted it before and i'll post it again. I maintain 1,200 cals , i prefer proteins and veggies and no processed foods at all. Last year I changed the ratio, ate less protein, more veggies and added in grains still maintaining the 1,200 cals. a day. I kept the same exercise routine all that time and over 3 months i gained 15 lbs and please don' say it was muscle. It was all in my stomach. I don't need a 'scientific' study to prove to myself what works for me and there's many more like me out there, including Clueless. I chose not to eat simple carbs because of health choices, i do not eat low carb because a book tells me its right, it's just ends up being what works for me. I chose not to eat wheat , soy or corn because they are gmo'd, not because they're high carbs Can you not at least understand that as human beings we are all different and what may work great for the mainstream does not work for all?

No because until I see it for myself or hear it from someone I trust I will never believe you're above thermodynamics. Your diet is private so I can't even see if you were truly eating 1200 calories. I have helped and seen it in many close friends who used to be obese to morbidly obese. Calorie tracking always works if they are honest and consistent.

Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.

???? lol Um. *Your* preference to eat a carby menu. *Your* personal feelings that restricting carbs is too heavy of a burden for any ordinary mortal to bear. *Your* personal belief that everyone can do what you do and be successful.

Stuff like that. Which I've been saying the whole thread. Which you've been conveniently ignoring the whole thread. Meh.

Diablo360x wrote:

Again, I am only giving freedom of choice,

What??? Riiiiight. Everyone is free to not choose LC. You've been saying that all along. Viva la freedom of not choosing LC!

Diablo360x wrote:

YOU are the one saying that there is an advantage to restricting carbs.

Indeed I am. I've quoted material to support my position too, including that USA Today article that you ignored twice. I've described my own personal success with LC which you instantly attributed to a placebo effect. blah blah blah.

Diablo360x wrote:

"Chained down and forced starved."-How hyperbolic can you get?

I'm working up to your level my friend. Give me time.

The point is, hyperbole aside, that your side clearly states that because in a clinical environment where an obese person is *forced* to have a calorie restriction that somehow proves that the same thing must be true for the population at large. That is, a person can force themselves to ELMM WB. But the obesity epidemic belies that claim. You guys believe that fat people are too unintelligent to understand that they need to eat less and too lazy to understand the benefits of moving more. When you peel back the rhetoric from your camp it always comes down to overweight people being stupid and lazy. I wasn't stupid or lazy. I don't believe most fat people are stupid or lazy either. But then again, I acknowledge the effect of various foods on human physiology while you cannot because admitting it undermines the entire 'a calorie is a calorie' Science!

I had no idea you didn't understand how low carb diets work. Let me explain it to you so you can stop having to make it up as you go.

Our bodies have a need for protein as the building blocks of muscle, for repair and new growth. A person's need for protein varies depending on their activity level.

Besides protein, we need energy to operate our bodies. Both fat and carbohydrate are energy calories. A person can choose how to distribute the energy calories they wish to consume in any proportion they wish.

When someone says they eat a low carb diet, they are eating their bodies' normal requirement of protein, and choosing to get most of their energy calories from fat.

There are indeed those who eat a high protein diet and seem not to suffer from it. But they are not considered "low carb" without qualification, because low carb is not a high protein diet.

Low carb is indeed a high fat diet. The majority of energy calories come from fat. The diet plan you constructed is a high protein/low carb diet, though some might argue that at 50g of carbohydrates, it is borderline very low carb/high protein.

What you're arguing against in this post isn't even a straw man. It's just wrong.

I did not post a universal low carb macro setup Kathy. I posted one example. Red said he tried to eat less than 50g which is why I chose that number. Too much higher than that and will the extra 300 calorie burn even take effect. Where is the threshold?

Here is another example. Please get another pathetically condescending post ready Kat.

120g of fat= 108075g of carbs= 30075g of protein= 300

1680 calories. Oh, look I went and posted a universal low carb macro setup. The arrogance.

Yeah, you did, Diab. See, you don't have to misrepresent it.

The point is though that you came up with a totally off-the-wall protein number to go with the carbs, and then blamed the diet as being "high protein".

My quote. "I do believe in the thermic effect of food which is why I would say a high protein diet can provide slightly better results over a long period of time. I do not think they would be very apparent but it's still a fact backed by science. It's just that to me, attempting to get 150-200g of it a day is less tasty and more expensive which is why I prefer to get around half of that and enjoy a tastier diet."

Please show me where I said low carbs must mean high protein in that paragraph. Keep grasping at straws attempting to say I am making strawman arguments. This is getting pathetic.

Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.

Again, do what works for YOU. How else can I say that without you accusing me of condemning people? Geeez.

Oh? If that is a real question I'll be happy to answer it for you. You can pledge to quit being the self-appointed anti-LC forum monitor. You can quit insisting that your way is the superior way because you don't like carb restriction personally and you personally hate LC. Note that I am not saying you have to endorse LC. Everyone is entitle to their opinion, even you. But you cannot abide anyone else speaking favorably about LC. That is the whole problem. So, there you go. Is that what you are saying here? I doubt it.

Diablo360x wrote:

On the subject of doctors, haha, you think they can hold a candle to Alan Aragon for example? With these credentials? "Alan Aragon has over 20 years of success in the fitness field. He earned his Bachelor and Master of Science in Nutrition with top honors. He is a continuing education provider for the Commission on Dietetic Registration, National Academy of Sports Medicine, and National Strength & Conditioning Association. Alan has lectured to clinicians at the FDA and the annual conference of the Los Angeles Dietetic Association. He maintains a private practice designing programs for recreational, Olympic, and professional athletes, including the Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles Kings, and Anaheim Mighty Ducks. Alan is the nutrition advisor of Men's Health magazine",

I don't see the name of his obesity clinic. But *I* don't think *I* can hold a candle to any particular expert in any field. I believe I am the one that had to let you in on the fact that serious body builders are very, very well studied in human metabolism. They know their stuff. That doesn't make them 'right' about LC if they believe LC to be wrong. Just like Dean Ornish knows his stuff inside and out and he is not right about LC.

You know, there are very, very few things that scientist all agree on. You guys ignore that inconvenient fact every time you try to pretend like the science is settled on weight loss. Heck, science doesn't fully understand human metabolism even today. How then can one side of the debate be 'correct' about it? I'll give you the answer. Because *you* agree with the side that agrees with you. I don't deny that about myself but you deny it about yourself. Get it? You deny your bias when you tell everyone it is your job to put down any 'misinformation' about LC.

Doctors know squat about nutrition. Many of them put people on horrendous diets. I have two co-workers who were on 800 calories a day by doctor recommendation. Please!

Um. lol Duh. But I wasn't talking about generic doctors. I was talking about doctors that specifically deal with obese patients like Phinney, Atkins, Westman, et. al. Your response is to bring up a credentialed individual that does not deal with obese patients.

Diablo360x wrote:

Also, please stop with the metabolic advantages, please provide scientific proof. I already did when I posted this in the past that you obviously did not read.

I am not clear on your use of pronouns in this statement. As I pointed out, you are arguing with yourself about 'metabolic advantages'. I guess. It really isn't clear. Are you still talking to yourself about caloric advantage or is this a new attempt at refuting blood sugar and insulin responses to foods eaten?

Diablo360x wrote:

Less choice=less calories. Common sense, yet again. You tell people they cannot eat after 8pm, they lower overall calories, you tell people to avoid a whole food group they eat less calories. For people who cannot restrict calories by simply counting, they need to set rules that do the same thing. Saying I don't believe you lost weight by restricting calories through restricting carbs is ridiculous. Why would I not believe that?

Just when I think you cannot top previous logical fallacies you get one in that is at least equal to the others. Less choice does not equal less calories because it does not enforce less eating of other choices. Telling someone to stop eating at 8pm does not enforce eating less the rest of the day. And restrictions like that tend to create obvious consequences of that person cramming in the bowl of ice cream at 7:59pm and eating a bigger breakfast in the morning when they wake up hungry. Avoiding one food group does not enforce eating less of other food groups.

Who knows why you believe what you believe Diablo. I don't think you are even clear on that issue yourself.

[quote=Diablo360x]Oh and you were so dang fat because you were eating too many calories....Derp.

Yes sir. The question you cannot wrap your head around is *why* was I eating too many calories. Try hard to think past 'stupid and lazy'. Really. That is sadly typical shallow thinking from lots of people that can lose weight with ELMM WB.

*Why* was I able to not eat too many calories, *suddenly*, when I restricted carbs? If it was a placebo effect, as you asserted earlier, why did the placebo last 80 pounds? How could I have been tricked for 80 pounds of weight loss? I wasn't locked in a room and never told that LC was a fraud. For it to have been a placebo effect I *must* be stupid. Right? How else could you explain staying tricked for two years with fine gentlemen like you and your friend all over the internet to make me aware of the misinformation? Heck, you can't throw a rock without hitting an anti-LC person IRL.

Please show me where I said low carbs must mean high protein in that paragraph. Keep grasping at straws attempting to say I am making strawman arguments. This is getting pathetic.

OMG, here's the "low carb diet" example you gave. You put it in two separate posts, too.

I will embolden your own words.

Diablo360x wrote:

So seeing this written out."80g of fat=720 calories150g of protein=600 calories50g of carbs= 200 calories"

Really shows how low carb dieting works. I mean, those are pretty high fat and protein numbers yet 1520 calories is still really low. You can continue to say that LC is special besides the way it helps keep calories low but the proof is in the numbers there. Satiety with lower calories. Nothing more. Those two things can work wonders for people alone. Keep it up everyone.

Define "special" in this context, particularly how I myself have made such a claim. The only "claim" I have made is that some people find it easier to stick to a LC diet than a HC one.

How strange you mention that. I was just thinking that you remind me of a very good personal friend of mine, Jack, from my carby days. I only hung out with him when during those frequent times when I fell off the ELMM WB bandwagon. But he always forgave me for shunning him when I was on the wagon. Never held a grudge. I liked that about him. Really, it was very magnanimous because while I was on the ELMM WB wagon I'd rail against him and his friends.

Diablo360x wrote:

If you were a regular on bodybuilding.com for example, this thread would not exist.

Astounding! I counter with this airtight logic of my own... If I were a regular on a vegan board, for example, this thread would not exist. Touche! my good man, touche!

Diablo360x wrote:

If Clueless was a leader, not a follower, she would also refrain from posting her vast knowledge(sarcasm).

Say. If all else fails there is always the random ad hominem to fall back on. (not-sarcasm).

Diablo360x wrote:

How else can I say that without you accusing me of condemning people?

I cannot imagine why I get the impression that you say things to condemn people.

The truth shall set you free. You feel like I am judging you and you're jealous that I have the willpower to get into great shape without having to LC my way there. You're your only competition. Don't try to measure up to others. It's okay.

Love your food or risk failure. No quick fixes, this is a lifestyle change. No extremes are needed just consistency.

Too much higher than that and will the extra 300 calorie burn even take effect. Where is the threshold?

Far be it from me to give you tips on how to argue your case with yourself, but!... I think you can refute what you are telling yourself here by repeating what you told yourself a post or two ago. Frankly, I am eager to see you beat yourself on this issue Diablo. Victory is yours!!

Diablo360x wrote:

Please get another pathetically condescending post ready Kat.

Hmmmm. I have already had your name inscribed on the Trophy For Outstandingly Pathetic Attempts At Condescension. If you wanted to vote for Kat you should have sent your ballot in earlier. But really it wouldn't have mattered because you won unanimously as runner up since the title holder excused himself 3 accounts ago.

I started this diet without Phentermine. About two weeks in my doctor suggested I try it, if I was willing to be on his terms. He is really strict about only offering it for a maximum of three months and ...